Post by: onions! on September 13, 2007, 11:58:44 AM
From the BBC....
Swiss citizenship system 'racist'
By Imogen Foulkes
BBC News, Geneva
An official report into the process of naturalisation in Switzerland says the current system is discriminatory and in many respects racist.
The report, from Switzerland's Federal Commission on Racial Discrimination, recommends far-reaching changes.
It criticises the practice of allowing members of a community to vote on an individual's citizenship application.
Muslims and people from the Balkans and Africa are the most likely to be rejected, the report points out.
Switzerland has Europe's toughest naturalisation laws. Foreigners must live for 12 years in a Swiss community before they can apply, and being born in Switzerland brings no right to citizenship.
Under the current system, foreigners apply through their local town or village.
They appear before a citizenship committee and answer questions about their desire to be Swiss. After that, they must often be approved by the entire voting community, in a secret ballot, or a show of hands. This practice, the report says, is particularly likely to be distorted by racial discrimination.
It cites the case of a disabled man originally from Kosovo. Although fulfilling all the legal criteria, his application for citizenship was rejected by his community on the grounds that his disability made him a burden on taxpayers, and that he was Muslim.
The report recommends that decisions on citizenship should be decided by an elected executive and not by the community as a whole. But such a move is likely to encounter stiff opposition.
Foreigners are a key issue in the run-up to Switzerland's general election next month.
The right-wing Swiss People's Party, currently leading in the opinion polls, claims Swiss communities have a democratic right to decide who can or cannot be Swiss.
Post by: Mabs2 on September 13, 2007, 12:05:30 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 13, 2007, 12:10:44 PM
It's their country; they can run it anyway they want.
Post by: longeyes on September 13, 2007, 12:36:33 PM
I'd love to know who's on that "Federal Commission."
*****
Here's what one foreign blogger had to say about it:
"Im an advocate of re-establishing the power of local political structures. Tyranny becomes more and more likely the further removed a government is from the people it ostensibly serves. The most notable contemporary examples of such structures are the United States and the European Union, but all modern nation-states share the same tendency towards swollen centralized bureaucratic oppression.
So the racism of the Swiss seems to me an eminently sensible plan for reawakening local sovereignty:
It criticises the practice of allowing members of a community to vote on an individuals citizenship application.
Yes, OK& and whats the problem with this? Is there something wrong with letting the people most intimately affected by immigrant foreigners decide whether to allow them in their midst? Or do the bureaucrats in Bern know better?
Muslims and people from the Balkans and Africa are the most likely to be rejected, the report points out.
Once again, common sense. These are the ones who or most likely to commit rape and other violent crimes, to beat their wives, to murder their daughters for causing the family dishonor , and most importantly they are the ones who are most likely to plan and execute acts of terrorism. An immigrant from Finland or Portugal is, statistically speaking, a much better risk for citizenship.
Foreigners must live for 12 years in a Swiss community before they can apply, and being born in Switzerland brings no right to citizenship.
Oh, if only we could adopt the same rules in the United States of America!
Under the current system, foreigners apply through their local town or village.
No wonder the Multiculturalists hate this system; it virtually guarantees the persistence of the monoculture.
They appear before a citizenship committee and answer questions about their desire to be Swiss. After that, they must often be approved by the entire voting community, in a secret ballot, or a show of hands.
And I say: Lets do it like the Swiss way!"
Post by: Manedwolf on September 13, 2007, 12:39:01 PM
Post by: The Viking on September 13, 2007, 12:52:41 PM
Silly Swiss. To be properly European these days, you have to allow your country to be overrun by groups that absolutely will not assimilate and would rather try to change their new home to be like their old home that they fled from.
Sounds like the stuff you read about Californians on THR.
Post by: Paddy on September 13, 2007, 12:57:17 PM
Silly Swiss. To be properly European these days, you have to allow your country to be overrun by groups that absolutely will not assimilate and would rather try to change their new home to be like their old home that they fled from.
Sounds like the stuff you read about Californians on THR.Mostly offered by smug rubes who've never been here (thankfully). Wait til the next Dem Pres & Congress come along, about 2009 by my reckoning. We'll see how well the so-called 'free states' escape that anti gun onslaught.
Post by: De Selby on September 13, 2007, 01:53:10 PM
Errr....if the Swiss think they have a problem with racism, I'm inclined to support anti-racist policies. That's a good thing.
Post by: Paddy on September 13, 2007, 02:02:24 PM
Yeah, ever since apartheid, it seems like everyone's all sensitive to racism in government policy. I mean really, who woke up and decided no country should discriminate against people because of their race?
Errr....if the Swiss think they have a problem with racism, I'm inclined to support anti-racist policies. That's a good thing.
Errr....if the Swiss think they have a problem with racism, I'm inclined to support anti-racist policies. That's a good thing.
Really? You intend to impose 'policies' on sovereign nations?
Post by: De Selby on September 13, 2007, 02:07:38 PM
Yeah, ever since apartheid, it seems like everyone's all sensitive to racism in government policy. I mean really, who woke up and decided no country should discriminate against people because of their race?
Errr....if the Swiss think they have a problem with racism, I'm inclined to support anti-racist policies. That's a good thing.
Errr....if the Swiss think they have a problem with racism, I'm inclined to support anti-racist policies. That's a good thing.
Really? You intend to impose 'policies' on sovereign nations?
Sometimes you do-witness the international movement against apartheid. Sovereignty should not be a blanket defense for racism or similar fundamentally savage practices.
Post by: Paddy on September 13, 2007, 02:17:04 PM
Quote
Sometimes you do-witness the international movement against apartheid. Sovereignty should not be a blanket defense for racism or similar fundamentally savage practices.
Really? Where's the 'international movement' against flat out genocide in Darfur, Sudan, Ruwanda and a hundred other places where third world people are slaughtering other third world people? Those are 'savage' practices, are they not?
Oh yeah, that doesn't count, because those are not predominantly white industrialized countries
More hypocrisy.
Post by: Euclidean on September 13, 2007, 03:35:45 PM
Post by: Werewolf on September 13, 2007, 03:47:50 PM
Quote
It cites the case of a disabled man originally from Kosovo. Although fulfilling all the legal criteria, his application for citizenship was rejected by his community on the grounds that his disability made him a burden on taxpayers, and that he was Muslim.
Lets see if I have this right. Not supporting a disabled person that a community didn't ask to come live with them and has neither a legal nor moral obligation to support same is racist?Hmmmph! Makes perfect sense to me.
Hell - now I understand why all the folks in the US that don't want illegal hispanics here are racist.
Who knew?
Post by: longeyes on September 13, 2007, 04:13:41 PM
Quote
Sometimes you do-witness the international movement against apartheid. Sovereignty should not be a blanket defense for racism or similar fundamentally savage practices.
Yes, we shouldn't let something as archaic as national sovereignty stand in the way of "world progress," should we? Since when is preserving the values of one's own culture "apartheid."
Now the question to me is, how savage and how racist are the people the Europeans are being asked to accept?
Post by: De Selby on September 13, 2007, 04:35:43 PM
RileyMc,
That's a good point. Where is the outcry? It isn't just hypocritical, it's wrong to ignore it. We agree there. But your implication that somehow "white nations" are singled out for abuse is on its face absurd.
I think there is an illness spreading that can be roughly called "White persecution/paranoia" complex, and it will probably earn itself a spot in the latest psychological manuals. To imply that switzerland is being singled out for criticism on racial policy because it's white in this case defies belief-it's a Swiss report that identifies the problems in the first place.
Post by: longeyes on September 13, 2007, 06:50:07 PM
White paranoia? Hardly. People of Color--or more accurately People of Choler--have said many times that white people are, in effect, the cancer of history. This isn't a diseased figment of the white imagination, it's all too real.
No good can come of this.
Post by: Paddy on September 13, 2007, 08:05:49 PM
Quote
That's a good point. Where is the outcry? It isn't just hypocritical, it's wrong to ignore it. We agree there. But your implication that somehow "white nations" are singled out for abuse is on its face absurd.
I think there is an illness spreading that can be roughly called "White persecution/paranoia" complex, and it will probably earn itself a spot in the latest psychological manuals. To imply that switzerland is being singled out for criticism on racial policy because it's white in this case defies belief-it's a Swiss report that identifies the problems in the first place.
I think there is an illness spreading that can be roughly called "White persecution/paranoia" complex, and it will probably earn itself a spot in the latest psychological manuals. To imply that switzerland is being singled out for criticism on racial policy because it's white in this case defies belief-it's a Swiss report that identifies the problems in the first place.
Name a predominately "other than white" civilization or culture that has significantly contributed anything of value to the human race.
Post by: Euclidean on September 13, 2007, 08:33:18 PM
Quote
That's a good point. Where is the outcry? It isn't just hypocritical, it's wrong to ignore it. We agree there. But your implication that somehow "white nations" are singled out for abuse is on its face absurd.
I think there is an illness spreading that can be roughly called "White persecution/paranoia" complex, and it will probably earn itself a spot in the latest psychological manuals. To imply that switzerland is being singled out for criticism on racial policy because it's white in this case defies belief-it's a Swiss report that identifies the problems in the first place.
I think there is an illness spreading that can be roughly called "White persecution/paranoia" complex, and it will probably earn itself a spot in the latest psychological manuals. To imply that switzerland is being singled out for criticism on racial policy because it's white in this case defies belief-it's a Swiss report that identifies the problems in the first place.
Name a predominately "other than white" civilization or culture that has significantly contributed anything of value to the human race.
Well I can field that one from a mathematical perspective.
Arabs - too much to count, inventors of algebra and our modern numerals, Ancient Egyptians figured out the word was round and it was forgotten for basically a couple thousand years...
Indigenous peoples of South America - Had the concept of zero when the Romans didn't, excellent notation and amazing calculatory capability
Chinese - numerous breakthroughs and innovations
And from a philosophical/law/religion perspective... Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. weren't white.
And if you want to get nit picky, you could consider American blacks their own culture. And they invented open heart surgery, street sweepers, and too many other things to count. Then there's Carver and his damned peanut...
Carry on.
Post by: Paddy on September 13, 2007, 08:59:51 PM
Post by: Euclidean on September 13, 2007, 09:10:26 PM
How kind of you to throw a bone into the distant past, Euclidean. What have all those folks done for us lately?
How distant is distant? If you look at black Americans as their own non white subculture, the good Dr. Drew was doing his breakthrough medical work as late as the 1940s. I have some jim dandy gizmos and whatnot that were made in the last two years by Japanese people. I'm sure there's some technology or science sector person who can give better contemporary examples, I'm just throwing out random things I know.
If nothing else it's pretty easy to surmise that accomplishments in the liberal/fine arts are universal to all cultures and constantly ongoing.
I don't really have a dog in this fight and don't think the accomplishments of all groups of people are equal, but I also believe in credit where credit is due, and that historical circumstances have a lot more to do with what one group accomplishes over another than innate capability of that culture.
Post by: Paddy on September 13, 2007, 09:14:05 PM
Quote
I have some jim dandy gizmos and whatnot that were made in the last two years by Japanese people.
Thank you Marshall Plan.
Anecdotal miscellanea, Euclidean, but thanks for the effort.
Post by: Euclidean on September 13, 2007, 09:16:20 PM
Quote
I have some jim dandy gizmos and whatnot that were made in the last two years by Japanese people.
Thank you Marshall Plan.
Anecdotal miscellanea, Euclidean, but thanks for the effort.
Well when we're detailing the complex tapestry of human achievement, what piece of it isn't anecdotal miscellanea?
Post by: De Selby on September 14, 2007, 12:21:40 AM
It seems like everything Euclidean gives you will be written off as irrelevant.
Post by: LadySmith on September 14, 2007, 01:51:56 AM
Quote
What have all those folks done for us lately?
I can only speak for myself, but... No Whites were harmed in my reading of this thread.
I haven't robbed, beaten, raped, killed, rioted nor looted in a long time either. I'm still working on a "can't we all just get along" ray gun, though. 
Post by: roo_ster on September 14, 2007, 02:55:12 AM
Sometimes you do-witness the international movement against apartheid. Sovereignty should not be a blanket defense for racism or similar fundamentally savage practices.
SS:I am sure this was not your intent, but you have pretty much provided a "blanket defense" for colonialism by the civilized nations of all the not-so-civilized.
Post by: Joe Demko on September 14, 2007, 06:06:59 AM
Post by: longeyes on September 14, 2007, 06:48:36 AM
Post by: cordex on September 14, 2007, 08:00:53 AM
Let's cut to the chase.
1. In what ways are "white" folks superior to "non-white" folks? Genetically? Socially? Spiritually?
2. What achievements do you credit whitey with?
3. If you give credit to melanin-deficient humans for their contributions to modern society, do you also hold them accountable for their various failings in modern society? Or is that all the fault of the "mud people"?
Post by: onions! on September 14, 2007, 08:40:45 AM
I just thought that the policy of,after a pre-determined time,the immigrants' peers voting yea or nay on citizenship was pretty kool.
Post by: Paddy on September 14, 2007, 09:45:55 AM
RileyMC,
Let's cut to the chase.
1. In what ways are "white" folks superior to "non-white" folks? Genetically? Socially? Spiritually?
2. What achievements do you credit whitey with?
3. If you give credit to melanin-deficient humans for their contributions to modern society, do you also hold them accountable for their various failings in modern society? Or is that all the fault of the "mud people"?
Let's cut to the chase.
1. In what ways are "white" folks superior to "non-white" folks? Genetically? Socially? Spiritually?
2. What achievements do you credit whitey with?
3. If you give credit to melanin-deficient humans for their contributions to modern society, do you also hold them accountable for their various failings in modern society? Or is that all the fault of the "mud people"?
Race is not the determining factor; culture is. By 'culture', I mean a set of values, ideas, beliefs,attitudes and language common to a group of people populating any particular geographical area. It is not 'racism' to judge some cultures superior to others. I think you would agree that the western cultures of industrialized countries, although they are different from each other (language, religion, politics, etc.) are nonetheless superior to any third world tribal culture.
Why? Simply quality of life. In third world countries (cultures) more people die from water borne disease than any other cause. In industrialized western countries (cultures) water borne disease is almost never an issue, but if it does happen is treatable.
In many tribal societies, women and girls are considered property and/or valued no more than, say, cattle. Forced female genital mutilation is an accepted practice. Some cultures prescribe 'honor killings' of their daughters for 'disgracing' the family by unapproved behavior.
And the list could go on and on.
As every individual has an inherent right to self defense, also each culture has a right to preserve and protect itself from destructive interference. You can think of this as 'freedom of association' if you like. This is not racism; the fact that the other culture (from whom disassociation is desireable) is predominantily of a different race is incidental.
The true 'racists' are the race baiters; the guilt ridden liberals(and others) who consider 'minorities' inferior and thus entitled to special treatment. They are the ones who constantly shout 'racism' where none exists in an effort to continue the myth that one race is inferior to another.
Post by: HankB on September 14, 2007, 11:27:22 AM
Which way are people migrating - from some stinking pestilential turd world hellholes to the West, or the other way around?
Even if you consider advanced nations . . . are more people migrating from the Orient to the West, or are more Westerners moving to the Far East?
Are more people moving from North America to Europe, or to North America from Europe?
Consider migration patterns . . . superior cultures are attractive . . . inferior cultures are not.
(No races were named in this posting.)
Post by: cordex on September 14, 2007, 11:46:03 AM
If your argument were about culture, why reference skin color?
Post by: longeyes on September 14, 2007, 12:40:11 PM
Quote
2. What achievements do you credit whitey with?
Uh, I don't know...Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, The Enlightenment, Industrial Technology, you typing on your computer on the internet.
When you figure out where these things came from and how and why, the "debate" can continue.
Post by: De Selby on September 14, 2007, 01:12:58 PM
Sometimes you do-witness the international movement against apartheid. Sovereignty should not be a blanket defense for racism or similar fundamentally savage practices.
SS:I am sure this was not your intent, but you have pretty much provided a "blanket defense" for colonialism by the civilized nations of all the not-so-civilized.
No, I haven't, but not based on the idea-going to other lands to improve their lots is okay in my book. Unfortunately, despite the occasional rhetoric, that was never the aim of colonization. Colonialism in practice is simply the same old savagery, carried out by more technologically advanced means.
If you can find me an example of a colony that was not designed to rob people of their resources and force them to obey, please do.
Post by: De Selby on September 14, 2007, 01:16:16 PM
Quote
2. What achievements do you credit whitey with?
Uh, I don't know...Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, The Enlightenment, Industrial Technology, you typing on your computer on the internet.
When you figure out where these things came from and how and why, the "debate" can continue.
How come no one counts "living in a country free from savage racism" as an achievement?
If it were not for the long struggle and sacrifice on the part of non-whites, we'd all probably still be living in countries that doled out privileges and rights on the basis of skin color; how backwards and utterly sinister is that?
There's one contribution that's undeniable: because of the hard work of non-whites, we live in a more civilized world.
Or does combating racism, slavery, and all the things that came with racism not count as an achievement for civilization?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 14, 2007, 01:24:16 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 14, 2007, 01:25:13 PM
shootinstudent, I suggest you read up on India's caste system...which exists to this day.
I know something of it-what's the connection you're drawing?
Post by: Paddy on September 14, 2007, 01:26:16 PM
Riley,
If your argument were about culture, why reference skin color?
If your argument were about culture, why reference skin color?
I didn't interject race into this discussion; I just bounced it back to the guy who did.
Post by: Tuco on September 14, 2007, 03:43:53 PM
Post by: longeyes on September 14, 2007, 04:12:51 PM
Quote
Or does combating racism, slavery, and all the things that came with racism not count as an achievement for civilization?
It counts. Too bad there's still so much racism and slavery in the "non-white" parts of the globe today. Or is that the white man's fault too?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 06:33:09 AM
Silly Swiss. To be properly European these days, you have to allow your country to be overrun by groups that absolutely will not assimilate and would rather try to change their new home to be like their old home that they fled from.
Sounds like the stuff you read about Californians on THR.Mostly offered by smug rubes who've never been here (thankfully). Wait til the next Dem Pres & Congress come along, about 2009 by my reckoning. We'll see how well the so-called 'free states' escape that anti gun onslaught.
Wow. That wins the "Non-sequitur of the week award"
Anyway, by definition, any decision-making process that uses race as a factor is racist. So I guess the Swiss system is racist, de facto if not de jure.
The next question is whether that is a bad thing or not.
Post by: longeyes on September 16, 2007, 06:39:55 AM
Post by: lacoochee on September 16, 2007, 06:56:08 AM
What the Swiss are doing is not racist, if anything it's "culturalist", they want to preserve what they feel is paradise on earth. I am sure that they would feel the same way about any group coming into their country, say for example the people of Vermont are invaded by Canadians looking for another source of maple syrup and they all flee to Switzerland, I am quite certain a few hundred thousand dispossessed Vermont-(ians?) would be just as unwelcome.
Post by: beaucoup ammo on September 16, 2007, 07:28:35 AM
Shooting is the National Pass Time and we've attended some great competitions!
Post by: doczinn on September 16, 2007, 08:34:35 PM
Quote from: RileyMC
Quote from: The Viking
Sounds like the stuff you read about Californians on THR.
Mostly offered by smug rubes who've never been here (thankfully).
Post by: cordex on September 17, 2007, 05:22:31 AM
Quote
2. What achievements do you credit whitey with?
Uh, I don't know...Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, The Enlightenment, Industrial Technology, you typing on your computer on the internet.Quote
When you figure out where these things came from and how and why, the "debate" can continue.
You make three interesting assumptions in that statement.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 17, 2007, 06:42:39 AM
Such an understanding would really change the debate. For instance, would the contributions of Martin Luther King, Jr. be a contribution of white or non-white culture? How much was he inspired by "white" influences like the Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights, and how much by "Oriental" influences like Ghandi's ideas? And would his Christianity be a "white" influence? Or would it also be "Oriental"? Maybe we shouldn't try to break down culture into racial groups.
Best comment so far:
Quote
The policy as written is not racist. It may be arguable that some of the people who have the power to vote on the policy might be bigots, but this goes back to my tirade on you can't legislate people into being good.
Post by: Iain on September 17, 2007, 06:52:33 AM
Best comment so far:
Quote
The policy as written is not racist. It may be arguable that some of the people who have the power to vote on the policy might be bigots, but this goes back to my tirade on you can't legislate people into being good.
Which underlines the idea about true democracy being a vote between two wolves and a sheep as to what is for dinner.
On Friday I was in a meeting with relatively recent immigrant to the UK. Had immigration been a decision of local peoples there are two historical and present good reasons why he might not have been accepted. He's black and he's a paraplegic. He paid some taxes here during his working life, and after his accident he chose to come here to live permanently.
For the Mail brigade he could easily have been a symbol of all that is wrong, but in reality he daily makes a huge contribution to local issues particularly on matters of disability.
Post by: Paddy on September 17, 2007, 06:55:06 AM
Quote
Anyway, by definition, any decision-making process that uses race as a factor is racist. So I guess the Swiss system is racist, de facto if not de jure.
Not if race is incidental to culture, which seems to be what the Swiss are doing. An example of state sponsored racism would be affirmative action, for example, where race is the only criteria.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 07:31:53 AM
Quote
Anyway, by definition, any decision-making process that uses race as a factor is racist. So I guess the Swiss system is racist, de facto if not de jure.
Not if race is incidental to culture, which seems to be what the Swiss are doing. An example of state sponsored racism would be affirmative action, for example, where race is the only criteria.
That sounds like a difference without a distinction. I couldn't tell you what would happen if a Black American or Canadian wanted to become a Swiss citizen.
And yes, affirmative action is racist.
Post by: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 11:05:39 AM
Of course, racism is a bad thing. Too bad the tribalists who comprise so many of the new wave of immigrants have no trouble with it.
Really? Always? The racism present in the U.S. against blacks was certainly bad. But would I say the discrimination against people from notoriously violent countries, generally muslim, is bad? Nope, I don't want these people in my country. They turn their own countries into crapholes, killing people over religion/etc., then come over here and make their little communities/neighborhoods the same sort of thing. The reason more muslims and africans and such are being rejected in Switzerland is because they're more likely to be troublemakers or uneducated and a burden on taxpayers who end up paying to support them. We need to be careful who we let in. I think the Swiss have a good system. By the time people are there long enough to apply for citizenship, they are known by the people enough so odds are better of a good decision being made by the people rather than by some bureaucrat.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 11:21:59 AM
Of course, racism is a bad thing. Too bad the tribalists who comprise so many of the new wave of immigrants have no trouble with it.
Really? Always? The racism present in the U.S. against blacks was certainly bad. But would I say the discrimination against people from notoriously violent countries, generally muslim, is bad? Nope, I don't want these people in my country. They turn their own countries into crapholes, killing people over religion/etc., then come over here and make their little communities/neighborhoods the same sort of thing. The reason more muslims and africans and such are being rejected in Switzerland is because they're more likely to be troublemakers or uneducated and a burden on taxpayers who end up paying to support them. We need to be careful who we let in. I think the Swiss have a good system. By the time people are there long enough to apply for citizenship, they are known by the people enough so odds are better of a good decision being made by the people rather than by some bureaucrat.
I have news for you:
Attributing characteristics to individuals based on stereotypes is called bigotry.
Post by: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 11:41:53 AM
Of course, racism is a bad thing. Too bad the tribalists who comprise so many of the new wave of immigrants have no trouble with it.
Really? Always? The racism present in the U.S. against blacks was certainly bad. But would I say the discrimination against people from notoriously violent countries, generally muslim, is bad? Nope, I don't want these people in my country. They turn their own countries into crapholes, killing people over religion/etc., then come over here and make their little communities/neighborhoods the same sort of thing. The reason more muslims and africans and such are being rejected in Switzerland is because they're more likely to be troublemakers or uneducated and a burden on taxpayers who end up paying to support them. We need to be careful who we let in. I think the Swiss have a good system. By the time people are there long enough to apply for citizenship, they are known by the people enough so odds are better of a good decision being made by the people rather than by some bureaucrat.
I have news for you:
Attributing characteristics to individuals based on stereotypes is called bigotry.
Some steretypes are true, some are not. Not for every individual in that group of course but often for the majority. It's pretty easy to find evidence of the stereotypes about muslims, for example. And FWIW, I don't care if I'm accused of being a "bigot" because enough liberals have tried that on me when failing any debate it means nothing to me...
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 11:56:43 AM
Attributing characteristics to an individual based on stereotypes is bigotry.
It does not surprise me that being a bigot doesn't bother you.
Post by: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 12:25:02 PM
Let me reiterate:
Attributing characteristics to an individual based on stereotypes is bigotry.
It does not surprise me that being a bigot doesn't bother you.
Attributing characteristics to an individual based on stereotypes is bigotry.
It does not surprise me that being a bigot doesn't bother you.
"Attributing characteristics to an individual based on stereotypes is bigotry" is the wrong way around. I've come to believe certain steretypes are true by being around enough individuals who prove them true. Stereotypes apply to groups not all individuals in that group. When groups of people as a whole exhibit certain behaviors it results in generalizations which some would refer to as "stereotypes." There are always exceptions to the generalizations but they are minorities within that group.
Post by: longeyes on September 17, 2007, 01:12:09 PM
Quote
I have news for you: Attributing characteristics to individuals based on stereotypes is called bigotry.
Then I suggest you stop doing it to people like myself.
When I said, "Of course, racism is a bad thing. Too bad the tribalists who comprise so many of the new wave of immigrants have no trouble with it" I meant that a lot of the "newcomers" are far more racist than the average American "nativist." America keeps getting slammed for racism--as if most of this planet isn't, wasn't, and won't continue to be racist. Alas. I take men as I find them, one by one.
Post by: Lee on September 17, 2007, 05:41:39 PM
Quote
Whatcha think of the Swiss?Racist or not?
Hardly. Discriminatory? Yes. They simply want to control the direction of their society's culture. The Swiss are very "buttoned-down" - quiet, efficient and mannerly. To lose those qualities would be the death of their culture...at least to them. I like Switzerland, but it's almost too quiet and controlled for my taste.I've been in libraries (and maybe a few funeral homes) that seem wild compared to the Zurich airport. Berne is pretty cool though...a nice mix of people and culture. The effects of immigration are apparent in the big cities there, just like anywhere....tons of graffitti, loud music, loud unruly youths, etc. Apparently they don't like it and want to reverse it. More power to them.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 21, 2007, 07:20:33 PM
People on all sides of the argument essentially state "Racism/culturalism/tribalism is bad, but my sort of racism/culturalism/tribalism is good, because it is for a higher purpose." The purpose being multiculturalism, "equality", "social progress", etc., just as well as national sovereignty, self-determination, or cultural self-preservation.
If you believe in freedom of association (and dissociation), there is no way you can honestly argue in favor of using the power of government one way or the other. If there is a breach in symmetry, it is in that the monoculturalist wants to keep others out, while the multiculturalist wants to keep others in.
Personally, I'd rather be kept out of where I am not wanted than be forced to remain inside a place I do not want to be in. It seems the lesser of the two evils. And, there is a significantly smaller risk for me to be parasitized upon.